|
ru.linux
- RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
From : Sergey Lentsov 2:4615/71.10 14 Oct 2001 14:17:02
To : All
Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/1011/letters.php3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1][LWN Logo]
[2]Click Here
[LWN.net]
Sections:
[3]Main page
[4]Security
[5]Kernel
[6]Distributions
[7]On the Desktop
[8]Development
[9]Commerce
[10]Linux in the news
[11]Announcements
[12]Linux History
Letters
[13]All in one big page
See also: [14]last week's Letters page.
Letters to the editor
Letters to the editor should be sent to [15]letters@lwn.net.
Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
October 11, 2001
From: Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@canada.com>
To: lwn@lwn.net
Subject: Disinformation Campaigns
Date: 04 Oct 2001 11:28:38 -0400
I'm a little disappointed here:
"Last week, the Gartner Group suggested that businesses should
consider moving away from IIS toward other, more secure web
servers. The latest Netcraft survey suggests that a number of
businesses are doing exactly that - tens of thousands of IIS-based
web sites have disappeared from the net recently. ..."
This is disinformation, at minimum misleading; a quick trip to that
Netcraft survey turns up
"It has been a very mixed month for Microsoft. Although the top line
figures appear to present steady growth in adoption of
Microsoft-IIS, this masks some significant events.
"The impact of Code Red has resulted in around 150,000 Microsoft-IIS
sites on 80,000 ip addresses disappearing from the internet, one of
the most visible proponents of Microsoft technology for mass hosting
has closed down, and Gartner Group has issued a strongly worded
advisory, recommending that people presently running Microsoft-IIS
should replace it as quickly as possible.
"On the plus side, receipt of a site list from homestead.com which
has over a million small sites based on NT, has more than offset the
losses from Webjump, and from the empirical evidence to date it
appears that people are not yet inclined to act on Gartner's advice.
...
"However, the implications for Microsoft are better than one might
initially expect. Of the 80,000 ip addresses no longer running
Microsoft-IIS, only around 2,000 are now running a competing web
server. Notwithstanding the fact that when a web server is replaced,
the replacement will not necessarily be on the same ip address, it
does seem that in most cases sites have been taken down, or port
filtered as part of a general tightening of security in the wake of
Code Red, rather than the Windows disks being formatted and replaced
with Linux/Apache."
Thus, what the Netcraft survey really reports is that MSIIS use is up
dramatically in September, and that it's Active Host growth rate is 3x
the growth rate of Apache, but more importantly than this, what the
survey _really_ says is that statistics on their own mean _nothing_
without context.
I've used both, and I will never again willingly use a Microsoft
server, but that's no excuse for trying to pump up opposition by
twisting reports and inflating statistics. Lying about it only opens
ourselves up to attack ("(ahem) about those stats you gave us at the
last meeting ..."). Where Opensource is better for the task, and I
believe that covers most server cases, it will succeed on its own
merits.
My $0.02
--
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: [16]http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)
From: "Sujal Shah" <sshah@progress.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Your editorial re: RAND licensing and the W3C
Date: 05 Oct 2001 14:08:52 -0400
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my disagreement with both the Patent Policy and
the reporting of this activity. After reading much of the emails,
public comments, and reporting of the W3C's implementation of a new
patent policy, I've been appalled at the misunderstandings that have
been perpetrated by many folks, including, respectfully, LWN.
From my understanding of the W3C's action, and reading through much of
the W3C's patent policy draft
([17]http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/), I would like to
express my opinion that the policy could be a step in the right
direction. Characterizing the W3 as attempting to create a "proprietary
web" is not reasonable or productive. It's important that we realize
that a new policy is necessary, and that certain aspects of the proposal
are actually beneficial to an open web.
Specifically, the W3C proposal imposes, for the first time by my
understanding, a full-disclosure policy for all members regarding
patents that may apply to standards being considered by the W3C. This
is indeed a good thing. A policy would go a long way in assuring those
of us that work on Free software that our work is indeed clear of
intellectual property concerns.
In addition, full disclosure would allow pressure to be applied when
the standards are being created. I believe, quite strongly, that there
will be strong voices in favor of RF licensing for W3C recommendations.
As each standard comes up for review and public comments, the general
public, as well as W3C members facing the prospect of accounting for and
managing royalty requirements, will lean in favor of RF standards.
This being said, I do disagree with the selection of RAND as the
minimum requirement for a standard. My personal opinion is that if a
member is not willing to relinquish royalty payments for a particular
technology, we as a development community don't need it as a standard.
To be honest, do we really need "standard" at all costs? If a company
is unwilling to part with royalties, then they should bear the costs of
creating their own market penetration.
I hope that LWN and others try to clarify the need for the PPF and
problems with this specific writing of it. Specifically, if the W3C
pushed the minimum requirement from RAND to RF, most everyone should be
happy. If a member is not willing to allow for a RF license, then that
technology should not be part of teh standard, or the standard shouldn't
be a standard.
Thanks,
Sujal
--
---- Sujal Shah --- sujal@sujal.net ---
[18]http://www.sujal.net
Now Playing: Rage Against the Machine - Mic Check
From: Bob Goates <bob.goates@echostar.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Subject: W3C Patent Policy Framework working draft
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 14:39:25 -0600
Cc: letters@lwn.net
WWW Patent Policy Working Group
Sirs:
I have a comment regarding the Working Draft of 16 August 2001 of the
W3C Patent Policy Framework.
In section 4.(a)2 it is stated that Essential Claims will not include
"claims which would be infringed only by ... enabling technologies that
may be necessary to make or use any product or portion thereof that
complies with the Recommendation but are not themselves expressly set
forth in the Recommendation (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing
technology, compiler technology, object-oriented technology, basic
operating system technology, and the like)."
I am concerned that this limitation on the definition of "Essential
Claims" will allow a standard to be adopted, without appropriate
licensing requirements, that depends on the proprietary API (Application
Programming Interface) of a proprietary operating system. In other
words, the standard would require users to purchase a specific
proprietary operating system in order to use products based on the
standard. I believe such a situation would be unacceptable and contrary
to the tradition of World Wide Web usage.
A similar problem might crop up with the implied exclusion of other
software interfaces from the definition of "Essential Claims".
A possible solution to this problem is to remove the wording "compiler
technology, object-oriented technology, basic operating system
technology" from section 4.(a)2 and add to the definition of "Essential
Claims" the statement: "Any claim regarding a software interface, which
interface is required by a standard, will be considered an Essential
Claim."
Thank you.
Bob Goates
r.goates@ieee.org
From: Wesley Felter <wesley@felter.org>
To: <letters@lwn.net>
Subject: Blame Apple? Blame Sorenson?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:10:52 -0500 (CDT)
LWN editors,
As you noted, Apple blames Sorenson for not releasing a Linux version of
their codec, but Sorenson claims to have an exclusive contract with Apple
preventing them from releasing anything except Mac and Windows versions. I
stopped caring a long time ago about who's lying to us.
Meanwhile, there may be an alternative. On2 recently open-sourced their
VP3 codec, which is supposed to be comparable in quality to Sorenson
Video. While VP3 won't help you watch the movie trailers from Apple's
site, it does provide open source tools to encode video that can be played
on Mac, Windows, and Linux. All that's needed is for someone to plug the
VP3 code into OpenQuicktime.
[19]http://www.vp3.com/
[20]http://openquicktime.sourceforge.net/
Wesley Felter - wesley@felter.org - [21]http://felter.org/wesley/
From: John George <jgeorg109@yahoo.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Making Money in Linux Web Distribution
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 09:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
I am a download customer of my favorite Linux
distribution. I have used both DSL and Cable Modems.
My favorite distro is largely distributed by mirrors
on the internet which actuall slow down when new
releases come out.
I used to buy boxed sets, but it gets expensive to
order several competing versions of Linux to find
which one works best for your particular equipment.
I would be willing to pay for "high bandwidth"
downloads of my favorite distros. It seems to me that
getting downloads quickly "by subscription" or "fill
out a web form with your credit card" would be a way
to make money from the bandwidth that modern internet
companies currently offer for free even though it is
an expense to them.
I am sure that there is some price between "free, but
slow and flakey" and "expensive boxed set, even
slower" that would work for someone like myself. I
find it hard to go back to my distro website and
donate after spending up to a week to get a download
completed. I usually buy my ticket to the movie
before I go in, not the other way around.
Perhaps there is a multiple of the raw bandwidth cost
that would work. I know there is at least one
customer asking for this service, me. I am sure there
are many more, especially if this service was included
in "exclusive club" membership or as a side benefit of
on-line stock purchases.
Come on, Linux Distros, get your marketing hats on!
Make money off of the internet.
Thanks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
[22]http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
From: "Kim J. Brand" <kim@kimbrand.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: a new message: LINUX LASTS LONGER
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 06:24:29 -0500
it seems to me that the 'costs less/works better' message of linux
marketing messages has been ineffective. microsoft's campaign advertising
99999 reliability will simply be believed through the magic of
repetition. consumer awareness of microsoft's products sells most of them
before they are advertised; the rest get sold due to the success of
microsoft's FUD campaign.
i would like to suggest a new PR theme for linux which can be used to
communicate an idea that consumers will understand and which microsoft
can't defend: microsoft's new 2 year licensing strategy for their Office
and OS products. i propose that all vendors of linux simply use the
service mark: LINUX LASTS LONGER on their products. this will establish a
'brand' that is identified with performance, economy, and simplicity
unencumbered by complicated licensing restrictions. the fact that multiple
vendors use it will help to create an awareness of linux and start moving
it from off-beat to main stream.
i've received many benefits from open-source in general and linux in
particular. i hope this 'gift' to the linux community begins to repay my debt.
kim
From: James Cameron <quozl@us.netrek.org>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: The Venerable Netrek
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:31:27 +1000
G'day from outback Australia,
Thanks for the mention of the venerable Netrek in LWN, October 4th.
I'm the OSS project leader for the Netrek server.
Our problem in the Netrek project is lack of packaging. It is
difficult to install Netrek, so we fail to compete. Netrek evolved in
a community of technical expertise, and has not changed with the
times.
We need help. We need to improve the GUI; it is too venerable. We
need to package the game on the popular Linux distributions. We need
a SETUP.EXE style installer for Windows users. If anybody is
interested, please contact me.
An update on LWN, April 2000: [23]http://lwn.net/2000/0406/backpage.php3
Netrek was played at the two computer camps in the past year. Other
games that were popular were BZFlag and StarCraft. The open source
games (Netrek, BZFlag) were easier for us to use because of licensing.
I commend the BZFlag development team, it is quite an improvement on the
venerable xtank!
--
James Cameron [24]mailto:quozl@us.netrek.org [25]http://quozl.netrek.org
/
[26]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [27]Eklektix, Inc.,
all rights reserved
Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
References
1. http://lwn.net/
2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
3. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/
4. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/security.php3
5. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/kernel.php3
6. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/dists.php3
7. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/desktop.php3
8. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/devel.php3
9. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/commerce.php3
10. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/press.php3
11. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/announce.php3
12. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/history.php3
13. http://lwn.net/2001/1011/bigpage.php3
14. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/letters.php3
15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
16. http://www.teledyn.com/
17. http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/
18. http://www.sujal.net/
19. http://www.vp3.com/
20. http://openquicktime.sourceforge.net/
21. http://felter.org/wesley/
22. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
23. http://lwn.net/2000/0406/backpage.php3
24. mailto:quozl@us.netrek.org
25. http://quozl.netrek.org/
26. http://www.eklektix.com/
27. http://www.eklektix.com/
--- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
* Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты уменьшение даты тема автор
| Тема: |
Автор: |
Дата: |
|
URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/1011/letters.php3 |
Sergey Lentsov |
14 Oct 2001 14:17:02 |
|
|
